Does random have limits?

[Steve]

I cant understand how some people still think there are limits to random.

Is it really that hard to understand? 

[MoneyT101]

MoneyT101 - Using dozens as an example, would you be able to win against the following sequence?

1|2|3|0|1
2|3|1|2|0
3|1|2|3|0

Each line has a repeat within the 15 spins as you stated, does this session end at +1?

I would have made 2.25 units before the first 0
I would have one 26.50 units total by the last spin with the zeros

[MoneyT101]

No bet from spin 10 onwards is fine except for the fact that you would have already lost on spins 4-9 where you were betting. How then does this scenario end in +1?

This can be extended out to double streets, streets, splits etc... still the same situation can occur

Read my last post I was already +1 before spin 10

[MoneyT101]

I cant understand how some people still think there are limits to random.

Is it really that hard to understand? 

I posted a link to another thread here with actual expert opinion on the limitation of random. 

Real math explanation not your opinions.

Here it is again since you obviously missed it.

Everyone should take some time and read the article posted on the first post here....

link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=25042.new#new

Actual mathematical proof about random numbers

[Steve]

Money, since you clearly understand it, can you please highlight the parts where they explain the limits of random?

I'm guessing your idea of "limits" is a sample of X amount of spins and results of a test. Or maybe a bell curve. Please, show me the expert analysis and "real math" you're referring to.

[ati]

You need to look at it with different eyes. There are many limits. The numbers on the roulette wheel are limited. The possible variation of numbers and playing positions are limited.
Cycles are the limits. A repeat will always happen on any position you play.

Look at dozen cycles for example. The length is limited to 3.



There are also statistics that are associated with cycle lengths, and they remain constant in a true random game. This means that past spins do matter, and even though individual numbers are independent and have a chance of 1/3, set of numbers are not. There is always statistical dependency.
Of course all this is not enough to win, other important things need to be considered and I'm still searching for those.

[Roulettebeater]

You need to look at it with different eyes. There are many limits. The numbers on the roulette wheel are limited. The possible variation of numbers and playing positions are limited.
Cycles are the limits. A repeat will always happen on any position you play.

Look at dozen cycles for example. The length is limited to 3.



There are also statistics that are associated with cycle lengths, and they remain constant in a true random game. This means that past spins do matter, and even though individual numbers are independent and have a chance of 1/3, set of numbers are not. There is always statistical dependency.
Of course all this is not enough to win, other important things need to be considered and I'm still searching for those.

Ati

Your post is really senseless !
What you describing is not something new, you can’t beat roulette based on this theory !

Random has no limits

[Steve]

The possible variation of numbers and playing positions are limited.

Yes i get that part.

Cycles are the limits.

Exactly what's a cycle? Please explain the example you gave. What's a dozens cycle?

The statistics you described are like saying on a coin flip, you'll be right 50% of the time.

Im trying to understand what some of you think.

[Firefox]

The article quoted from Stanford is philosophy not maths. There tend to be one or two fundamental truths but it is submerged in contorted language. It's the kind of interwoven riddle speech that Priyanka espoused.

Firstly, there's no such thing as cycles in random numbers. Cycles and random are the very antithesis. If you identify consistent cycles or patterns, it is either transient random, or external bias.

You can't beat transient random. The pattern you apply to beat it today and tomorrow will fail next week or the next day. You'll end up with random bets over a period and be eaten by the house edge.

So you are left with external bias. Do what you must to beat that. Take data, look at diamond plots, look at scatter plots, look at dealer patterns, time rotor speeds. There are real ways to apply those things which are hard work, but they do work long term. Not like fairy tails and riddles.

[redhot]

Read my last post I was already +1 before spin 10

There were no repeats before spin 10, so you're not betting for the repeat?

1|2|3|0|1
2|3|1|2|0
3|1|2|3|0

Looking at it as an event rather than dozens, there are only two options:

• No repeat (N)
• Repeat (R)

The matrix would then look like this:

1|N|N|N|R
2|N|N|R|N
3|N|N|R|N

So you're betting for the 'N's but an 'R' ends the cycle?

[Person S]

I’m not sure if I’m right, but if we look at it from a different angle, then.

(R?) - Is it possible to bet on another position here?


1 | R(?)  | R | N | R
2 | N     | N | R | N
3 | N     | N | R | N

[MoneyT101]

There were no repeats before spin 10, so you're not betting for the repeat?

1|2|3|0|1
2|3|1|2|0
3|1|2|3|0

Looking at it as an event rather than dozens, there are only two options:

• No repeat (N)
• Repeat (R)

The matrix would then look like this:

1|N|N|N|R
2|N|N|R|N
3|N|N|R|N

So you're betting for the 'N's but an 'R' ends the cycle?

I made 3 bets before the 0

R ends and starts but the bet doesn’t have to be on R

[MoneyT101]

The article quoted from Stanford is philosophy not maths. There tend to be one or two fundamental truths but it is submerged in contorted language. It's the kind of interwoven riddle speech that Priyanka espoused.

Firstly, there's no such thing as cycles in random numbers. Cycles and random are the very antithesis. If you identify consistent cycles or patterns, it is either transient random, or external bias.

You can't beat transient random. The pattern you apply to beat it today and tomorrow will fail next week or the next day. You'll end up with random bets over a period and be eaten by the house edge.

So you are left with external bias. Do what you must to beat that. Take data, look at diamond plots, look at scatter plots, look at dealer patterns, time rotor speeds. There are real ways to apply those things which are hard work, but they do work long term. Not like fairy tails and riddles.

Cycles are a way to organize random... that’s one of the things the article speaks about.

It also talks about how after so many numbers it has no choice but to repeat.

If something runs out of options and has to repeat the it has a limit!!!

For instance my examples I been sharing is about dozens

After dozen 1,2,3... you can’t have a dozen 4 or 5.

Yea it sounds stupid but that’s just it.  The answer is simple once you understand.

Cycles are just a way to organize the information.  By using the math within a cycle you know what happens less and what happens more. 

Now within this world of this math there are other games you can play which will give you an edge

[MoneyT101]

I’m done with this topic!

I’ve said enough info already, more then I should have atleast.

You can believe me or not.  Doesn’t affect me.  Those that seen my progress from my first post can see I’m not bullshi**ing took time and a lot of work to get here. 

It all started with the principle!

✌️

[Firefox]

Of course numbers repeat. Of course patterns repeat. But they don't repeat at regular or any determined intervals. Therefore this information is useless fior betting purposes.

Take the simplest of options. Two numbers.

1122122122211121...?

What next. We've already seen all the groups of two and three numbers in sequence. There must be a repeat now. But this doesn't mean there is a limit to random. The odds on 1 appearing are 50/50, the same for 2.

All the riddles and philosophy in the world have got you precisely nowhere in practical betting terms.